The Bush administration may have broken over two dozen federal laws and regulations -- some of them multiple times -- according to an unreleased report from the House Judiciary Committee Democrats.

"The misconduct I have found is not only serious, but widespread," reads a draft summary of the report by Ranking Member John Conyers (D-MI):

The laws implicated by the Administration’s actions include federal laws against making false statements to congress [sic]; federal laws and international treaties prohibiting torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment; federal laws concerning retaliating against witnesses and other government employees; Executive Orders concerning leaking and other misuse of intelligence; federal regulations and ethical requirements governing conflicts of interest; the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; communications privacy laws; the National Security Act; and the Fourth Amendment.

The document, an update to the Democrats' December 2005 report, "A Constitution in Crisis," will be released later this week, according to knowledgeable sources. It is several hundred pages long, with over a thousand footnotes.

[ QUOTE ]
"We said, ‘look, we’ll do it ourselves’" — compile a document that lists every instance of alleged wrongdoing by the Bush administration’s handling of intelligence, the war in Iraq, and retaliation against those who tried to speak out about it. "Every sentence, every allegation, every accusation that we have in this 371-page report has a citation or a reference to it of where we got it," Conyers explained, with a hint of pride at his staff’s work.

<hr /></blockquote>

Q

Q

wolfdancer

08-07-2006, 08:26 AM

Q, I really find this report hard to believe, despite all the references and cross-checking, etc.
Only 26 statutes violated?????.........I would have placed the total much higher.

Deeman3

08-07-2006, 10:56 AM

Wolf,

Yes, any self-respecting, over the top Administration would have at least 100 violations by now. Wouldn't it be appropriate for some of these democratic members to bring charges againt the administration. You know, a Republican has done so, why are the Democrats hesitating?

Deeman

dg-in-centralpa

08-07-2006, 11:27 AM

They are waiting for Gayle and Q to lead the charge.

DG

wolfdancer

08-07-2006, 12:58 PM

Dee, that's a good question....
Susan McDougal was on C-Span this weekend telling her side of the story.....I choose to believe her version, including the allegation that they offered her a deal, admit to a sexual relation with Bill Clinton, that we can use against him.
But for the doubters, can you explain why, she was placed in solitary confinement for so long, then transferred to a maximum security prison...unheard of for a white collar crime.
And then all this money spent on a $300k loan, while the millions dollar loans of the Bush Bros, Jeb,Neal, are just written off.
It'a a strange, strange world we live in....you can't tell the good guys from the bad, not without name tags
http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/060804/lane.gif

Deeman3

08-07-2006, 01:26 PM

I've heard Susan's story before several time and it seems pretty credible to me as well. I didn't know that anyone was interested in her sexual relationship with Bill Clinton. I didn't think there was much illegal about that part anyway.

I am just so tired of all the stories of corruption and law breaking I just want someone to step up and make the charges and get it in the courts. One side claiming this and the other defending is getting old. Just as with Clinton, let them put up the charges and be done with it.

It seemed, much like the Clinton saga, everyone would rather (not Dan Rather) use this as a political club than enforce the law. Any citizen, lawyer, or member of the senate or house can file these charges.....or is it more expedient to just shout about it, or throw a headline every two weeks?

I don't think so. The Democrats know that if they try to enact anything with Republicans in power, they'll simply call it to a vote, and continue to cover for the corruption of this administration. Does that concern you at all? Just thought I'd ask.

John Dean's book, "Worse Than Watergate" leaves no doubt that the law breaking by George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Condoleeza Rice, far exceeds what is considered to be impeachable law breaking. Remember, that George Bush did everything he could do to prevent any investigations into 9/11, including cutting off the money for the investigation. Why do you think he did that?

When BC was Pres, the slightest whiff of scandal got the 'righteous'in a dizzy. Now the Dems release a 300 page report detailing abuse of power [ and backing it up with real evidence] and nodody- not even the Liberal press /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif- is interested.
Q

When BC was Pres, the slightest whiff of scandal got the 'righteous'in a dizzy. Now the Dems release a 300 page report detailing abuse of power [ and backing it up with real evidence] and nodody- not even the Liberal press /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif- is interested.
Q

<hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue"> Perhaps it might be because there is no real substance there? If the left had hard evidence, they would have used it and you know that is the case. They also know the courts have consistently ruled against the administration so they would have a sympathic ear in the courts but still don't make real charges. Hum!

Instead they will continue to quote left wing books and periodicals that share their view but have no evidence beyond bluster. Just a guess....Huffington says ".......

Deeman </font color>

DickLeonard

08-08-2006, 06:42 AM

Gayle Come on GWB was just saving the Taxpayers money so his friends could steal more of it. It wasn't because he was hiding in a classroom in florida, it was a good thing he had brought spare underware with him.####

Qtec

08-08-2006, 07:31 AM

How can you dismiss it out of hand if you haven't read it.

As for a real investigation!!!

[ QUOTE ]
(07-19) 04:00 PDT Washington -- President Bush in effect blocked a Justice Department investigation of the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program, refusing to give security clearances to attorneys who were attempting to conduct the probe, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Tuesday.

Bush's decision represented an unusually direct and unprecedented White House intervention into an investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility, the internal affairs office at the Justice Department, according to Bush administration officials and legal experts. It forced the office to abandon its investigation of the role played by department officials in authorizing and monitoring the controversial eavesdropping program, according to officials and government documents.

"Since its creation some 31 years ago, OPR has conducted many highly sensitive investigations involving Executive Branch programs and has obtained access to information classified at the highest levels," the office's chief lawyer, H. Marshall Jarrett, wrote in a memorandum released Tuesday. "In all those years, OPR has never been prevented from initiating or pursuing an investigation."

<hr /></blockquote>

You should read the part called 'Manipulation of Public Opinion'.
If we were to discuss just one incident i would chosse the Niger Yellowcake affair. Its a classic example of Govt deception.

[ QUOTE ]
By summer 2002, the White House Iraq Group assigned Communications
Director James R. Wilkinson to prepare a white paper for public release,
describing the “grave and gathering danger ” of Iraq ’s allegedly “reconstituted” nuclear weapons program.

Wilkinson gave prominent place to the claim that Iraq “sought uranium oxide, an essential ingredient in the enrichment process, from Africa. ” That claim, along with repeated use of the “mushroom cloud” image by top officials beginning in September, became the emotional heart of the case against Iraq. The uranium claims had never been significant to career analysts -- Iraq had plenty already and lacked the means[to enrich it. But the allegations proved irresistible to the White House Iraq
Group, which devised the war ’s communications strategy and included Libby among its members. Every layman understood the connection between uranium and the bomb, participants in the group said in interviews at at the time, and it was the easiest way for the Bush administration to raise alarms. <hr /></blockquote>

Yes, Saddam already had yellowcake, tons of the stuff but couldn't do anything with it!

Lets face it, long before 9/11 they wanted to invade iraq. 9/11 just gave them the excuse. They lied and distorted the evidence and presented a false picture in order to sway public opinion.
Who was Saddam really a threat to? I would say Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Where did you US get all this false info from?
Who knows. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Q

Deeman3

08-08-2006, 07:44 AM

Q,

I'm waitng for you to read it and pick out all the "juicy" parts and paste them here, thereby saving me wading through 300 pages or stuff.

Deeman

Qtec

08-08-2006, 07:54 AM

Its ALL juicy stuff D! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Q

Gayle in MD

08-08-2006, 10:39 AM

Deeman,

The case is building against them, but let's be real, the Democrats can't do a thing about with while Republicans are in majority to block proceedures.

BTW, Huffington post is a good source of the current events of the day. Articles from news sources from around the world are linked there. It seems I recall some on here made fun of Vanity Fair magazine, also. Then VF broke the Deep Throat story. a monthe ago, they had an in depth investigative article on the Niger affair, yellow cake, deal. Their investigative reporters are very good.

John Dean, isn't from the left, he was a republican most of his life. He now is registered as an Independent.

If you think that George Bush hasn't broken laws, may I ask, where do you get your news? The list of broken laws is too long to begin to quote, but I assure you, there is no doubt, even among most so called conservative journalists, that Bush, Cheney and Rice knowingly lied to the country and the world to launch this war. Surely you don't deny that, do you?

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3

08-08-2006, 11:10 AM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Deeman,

The case is building against them, but let's be real, the Democrats can't do a thing about with while Republicans are in majority to block proceedures. <font color="blue">Please name any procedures over charges that are being blocked by the Republicans. Remember, even the republicans are distancing themselves from the administration. Should be no problem getting co-sponsors. </font color>

BTW, Huffington post is a good source of the current events of the day. <font color="blue">Huffingtom will post anthing from any source without any consideration of it's validity. </font color> Articles from news sources from around the world are linked there. <font color="blue"> That, somehow, makes it accurate and relevent? </font color> It seems I recall some on here made fun of Vanity Fair magazine, also. <font color="blue"> I never made fun of Vanity Fair, the magazine or the movies... </font color> Then VF broke the Deep Throat story. a monthe ago, they had an in depth investigative article on the Niger affair, yellow cake, deal. Their investigative reporters are very good.

John Dean, isn't from the left, he was a republican most of his life. He now is registered as an Independent. <font color="blue">Have I ever, ever referred to John Dean? </font color>

If you think that George Bush hasn't broken laws, may I ask, where do you get your news? The list of broken laws is too long to begin to quote, but I assure you, there is no doubt, even among most so called conservative journalists, that Bush, Cheney and Rice knowingly lied to the country and the world to launch this war. Surely you don't deny that, do you? <font color="blue"> Gayle, we've had this over and over again. All politicians lead us to battle based on false or slanted info. Did Johnson not make Vietnam a much larger conflict based on bad info on how the war was going? Not that I even blame Johnson, the war was passed on to him by Kennedy but, come on, it's always that way. Nixon got us out of Vietnam, does that make him a hero? Nope, of course not.

The laws aledgely broken are not more numerous nor worse than other presidents have done. However, we never elevated every move of a president into such a hate filled vendetta. That will be different from now on. Every president will be under a microscope and his/her powers much diminished, therefore giving way to future presidents being able to utter, "I am powerless to act." I don't think this is in the best interest of the country for short term, just for political gain. Howevr, I may feel differently when I'm able to bar-be-que the next demmocrat in office. </font color>

Deeman

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

wolfdancer

08-08-2006, 11:26 AM

I think you can remain a staunch Republican, believe in God and a conservative agenda....but concede that Bush is a failure, a huge mistake, and a political embaressment to the Republican party.
As to these "unfounded, unproven", accusations against him...there's an unprecedented number of people, including many former supporters, that have published books, articles, exposing him...perhaps like in the O.J. murders, there is too much info, to much criminal evidence to comprehend, and you're still holding out for the "leather glove" that doesn't fit, and will exonerate him.
Maybe these charges are not pushed by the Democrats, because the proven accusations against a sitting President, would do untold damage to the country, in a world court of opinion.
If you choose not to give credence to any of the charges....at least admit to the worst leadership imaginable, during the 9/11 and Katrina crises.
How many people have ever resigned such a prestigeous office as Secretary of State,as Colin Powell did, without just cause....and he's no quitter?
I believe his resignation alone proved "There's something rotten in Denmark"
Once you own up to the fact that as in "King Lear" you have elected the court jester as a "King"

....you'll feel a burden lifted from your soul....and then we can further discuss Reagan/Nixon to complete your confession and absolution.
http://www.aaaclipart.com/aaanew/ancient-medieval-native/jester.gif

Gayle in MD

08-08-2006, 11:32 AM

Deeman Writes...Perhaps it might be because there is no real substance there? If the left had hard evidence, they would have used it and you know that is the case. John Dean's book will provide all the evidence of law breaking by this administration that anyone would need to impeach Bush and Cheney. As I said, Democrats have been completely blocked from holding bush to any accountability for his law breaking, by Republicans, who have thwarted investigations left and right. They also know the courts have consistently ruled against the administration so they would have a sympathic ear in the courts but still don't make real charges. Hum! I predict this is going to change. We first must get majority control over the Congress, which I'm sure you know. There is plenty of evidence, thanks to George Bush, who acknowledged breaking the law, and then promises to do so again and again.

Instead they will continue to quote left wing books and periodicals that share their view but have no evidence beyond bluster. Just a guess....Huffington says ".......

Again, I offer you a very well written, and well documented book, written by probably the most well educated person in the country regarding impeachable offences, John Dean, who is not from the left, but in fact, from the right, and who offers a good deal more proof than anything which one could call "Bluster"
However, if Bluster is what you'd like, I highly recommend Man Coulter's books, which are chock full of bluster! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

The Bush administration has drafted amendments to a war crimes law that would eliminate the risk of prosecution for political appointees, CIA officers and former military personnel for humiliating or degrading war prisoners, according to U.S. officials and a copy of the amendments.

"This removal of [any] reference to humiliating and degrading treatment will be perceived by experts and probably allies as 'rewriting' " the Geneva Conventions, said retired Army Lt. Col. Geoffrey S. Corn, who was recently chief of the war law branch of the Army's Office of the Judge Advocate General. Others said the changes could affect how foreigners treat U.S. soldiers.

The amendments would narrow the reach of the War Crimes Act, which now states in general terms that Americans can be prosecuted in federal criminal courts for violations of "Common Article 3" of the Geneva Conventions, which the United States ratified in 1949.

U.S. officials have long interpreted the War Crimes Act as applying to civilians, including CIA officers, and former U.S. military personnel. Misconduct by serving military personnel is handled by military courts, which enforce a prohibition on cruelty and mistreatment. The Army Field Manual, which is being revised, separately bars cruel and degrading treatment, corporal punishment, assault, and sensory deprivation.

Common Article 3 is considered the universal minimum standard of treatment for civilian detainees in wartime. It requires that they be treated humanely and bars "violence to life and person," including murder, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture. It further prohibits "outrages upon personal dignity" such as "humiliating and degrading treatment." And it prohibits sentencing or execution by courts that fail to provide "all the judicial guarantees . . . recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."

The risk of possible prosecution of officials, CIA officers and former service personnel over alleged rough treatment of prisoners arises because the Bush administration, from January 2002 until June, maintained that the Geneva Conventions' protections did not apply to prisoners captured in Afghanistan.

<hr /></blockquote>

GW personally blocked the investigation into the NSA spying allegations and now they want a 'get-out-of jail card' for possible War Crimes.

Do you ever wonder........

why the US has still not captured or killed OBL[ the most wanted man in the World].
That nobody has ever been held accountable for the 9/11 attack?
Remember the forged Niger Doc that caused GW so much trouble? They never found out who was behind that.

Remember the Anthrax 'attack'? Despite the fact that the Anthrax came from a US facility, they never found out who was behind that either!

Q

DickLeonard

08-09-2006, 08:21 AM

DG I am waiting for Bob Dylan to put music to Gayle's rap song and its 1970 all over again. Peace Nics marching on Washington again.####

Deeman3

08-09-2006, 09:35 AM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> I think you can remain a staunch Republican, believe in God and a conservative agenda....but concede that Bush is a failure, a huge mistake, and a political embaressment to the Republican party. <font color="blue"> But, Wolfdancer, if I did that, the terrorists will have won! /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif</font color>
As to these "unfounded, unproven", accusations against him...there's an unprecedented number of people, including many former supporters, that have published books, articles, exposing him...perhaps like in the O.J. murders, there is too much info, to much criminal evidence to comprehend, and you're still holding out for the "leather glove" that doesn't fit, and will exonerate him. <font color="blue"> Hey, as you say, It worked for O.J. </font color>
Maybe these charges are not pushed by the Democrats, because the proven accusations against a sitting President, would do untold damage to the country, in a world court of opinion. <font color="blue"> I do not believe for a moment that any democrat is holding off on prosecutting Bush to preserve the country of anything. I don't beleive you really think this either. </font color>
If you choose not to give credence to any of the charges....at least admit to the worst leadership imaginable, during the 9/11 and Katrina crises. <font color="blue"> I admit I would have hoped for better response to 9/11 (you would really have not liked my response to 9/11) but am not sure I agree too much on Katrina as I fault the Stae and local governments as well. None of us, as critics, understand the difficulty of helping people who, A) Don't have enough sense to help themselves, (not all but most), Passed up opportunity after opportunity to get out. C) Turned violent and abusive on their own people not when it got really bad, but form the get-go. D) Voted so heavily Democratic.</font color>
How many people have ever resigned such a prestigeous office as Secretary of State,as Colin Powell did, without just cause....and he's no quitter?
I believe his resignation alone proved "There's something rotten in Denmark" <font color="blue"> May be but he should have exposed that after he left office. </font color>
Once you own up to the fact that as in "King Lear" you have elected the court jester as a "King" <font color="blue"> In King Lear, the Jester may have been the only sound mind around. Am I right? </font color>

....you'll feel a burden lifted from your soul....and then we can further discuss Reagan/Nixon to complete your confession and absolution. <font color="blue"> O.K. I'll do this as soon as Bush is out of office. I'll then sign up for the Ms. Clinton ship of forgiveness....Remember, I gave my vote to her for you in 2008. </font color>
http://www.aaaclipart.com/aaanew/ancient-medieval-native/jester.gif <hr /></blockquote>

wolfdancer

08-09-2006, 12:05 PM

I see you are going to be a "hard sell"
Re: 9/11 and Katrina.....I think a President's main role in any crisis is to reassure the country.....e.g. Winston Churchill, Franklin D.
It was not too reassuring to see Bush continue to read the funnies to the schoolkids....that worked fine for Fiorello....this called for a little for immediate action. He could have told the little monsters that "the sky was falling, and he was chicken little"...and at least then appear to take charge.
Katrina was an unprepared for disaster, with the wrong people in charge, and little cooperation among the various agencies. The fiasco continues with the trailor issue....and Bush still has a non-competent in charge of Homeland Security....we haven't learned much from the disaster.
I'm afraid that that same violence, looting, killing would take place in any city during a disaster...even among the Hamptons residents, who knows?
Re: my King Lear remark....I only claim to have read WS, not to have understood a word that he wrote....and why ruin a good allegory by splitting hairs?
this old brain is atrophying by the minute, and I ain't got too many metaphors ,etc, left inside.
You,ll feel good after you have voted for Hillary....won't make up for your past transgressions, at the polls, but it'll be a new beginning.